Newborn photography beginner

[paigew]

These were taken without a macro at around 35mm

 

[ECshoot]

View attachment 178500 Heres an example of a “ macro” shot with a 13 mm extension tube fitted to a 24-105mm

love the perspective on this shot. Nice work.

 

[Original katomi]

It’s been a long time since I did baby pics so ideas may have changed
But using flash was a real no no, on account that it could damage baby’s eyes
The other idea that was in fashion at the time was to have something in the shot that gave size reference the above shot of the hand holding the baby’s foot is a classic.
Good luck and enjoy the moment
I have not offered opinion on kit as I only speak canon

 

[Stefana]

Thank you guys for the tipps you all gave me! I decided to buy an extension tube, which i think was a good decision. I didn’t try it yet on newborn, but I’ve tried it on insects, put it on my 35mm, and I’m satisfied.
Here’s an example.
Thank you again!

 

[Original katomi]

I use ex tubes for some of my pics
You may want to look at lighting and photo/image stackingIf I can help just give me a shout
For close up lighting I use ring light that fits on the lens and or bunny ear lights the latter being flexible
Not a lot of light output but enough for macro

 

[Braineack]

58mm 1.4 (87mm APS-C equiv.)

DSC_8755 by Braineack, on Flickr

70-200 2.8 @ 90mm (52mm APS-C equiv.)

DSC_8729 by Braineack, on Flickr

24-70 2.8 @ 70mm (105mm APS-C equiv.)

DSC_8716 by Braineack, on Flickr

24-70 @ 35mm (53mm APS-C equiv.)

Scarlett Annie Allen by Braineack, on Flickr

70-200 @ 200mm (300mm APS-C equiv.)

DSC_5791 by Braineack, on Flickr


Personally, I prefer a longer fast lens. If i was doing more newborn photography, I'd personally want the 105mm f/1.5. Something you could afford now as a compromise might be the 85mm 1.8g.

I would never think of using a macro lens for this type of shooting...

 

[Designer]

I decided to buy an extension tube, which i think was a good decision. I didn’t try it yet on newborn, but I’ve tried it on insects, put it on my 35mm, and I’m satisfied.

You're cutting the DOF razor thin! A very thin DOF with insects is one thing, but with human subjects, it's quite another entirely.

Viewing your examples, I can guess that if you were to photograph a baby (or any human face) with that thin of DOF, you're going to get only one eye sharply in focus, and everything else will be a blur.

Start over.

 

[ebyelyakov]

My wife is a newborn photographer. a 24-70f2.8 (on a 35mm sensor) is her workhorse. Newborn photography is really about posing and mellow, pastel editing.
She's like 95% of time at 2.8 and 50mm on a FF camera.

Macro lens - I wouldn't recommend it -- different magnification ratio plus there are cases of too much sharpness (like using Sony 90G)

 

[steele shirley]

I typically don't do people photography but I think lighting is far more important than the details of the lens you're using.

Yes, it's right, Lighting plays an important role in photography. You can grab the best result during natural light.

 

[ebyelyakov]

I typically don't do people photography but I think lighting is far more important than the details of the lens you're using.

Yes, it's right, Lighting plays an important role in photography. You can grab the best result during natural light.

Whilst there are many people using natural light, it is hardly the best option. It is whimsy and changing and for newborn, peacefully sleeping, an exposure to a bright, continuous stream of light could be quite bothersome.